The Obama Healthcare bill as it stands now is a bum deal for women.
The watering down of women's healthcare - Mikulski amendment won't be discussed on the floor. (http://bit.ly/56Murn)
The Mikulski Amendment is designed to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage quoting current guidelines for procedures like routine mammograms which were recently modified to start only at age 50 and to happen biennially instead of annually, especially if a specialist recommends the patient have one. The Mikulski Amendment: (http://bit.ly/4CPg2G)
The other thing is abortion coverage. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment that made it possible to pass the Bill through the House and had similar language added on in the Senate version prohibits insurance companies from offering plans on the exchange with abortion coverage to anyone that receives governmental aid. An NY Times Op-Ed on this issue: http://bit.ly/iw0WS
The problem, as I see it and perhaps my physician friends can clarify, is that the procedure that removes a foetus is termed a D&C (Dilation and Curettage). This same procedure removes a foetus in an unwanted pregnancy or removes the remains of a miscarriage or foetal demise. It is also the same procedure that is used to remove intra-uterine polyps. The medical term for all these procedures, irrespective of the pathology, is the same. And since the language of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is so broad and vague, it is highly likely (extremely likely, I would argue given past history) that insurance companies will use its language to deny women coverage.
All this because the Catholic Church and a bunch of religious fanatics are worried about the life of an unborn child to the point where they don't care about the lives of the living that can and will be jeopardised by not having access to this procedure.
If Obama really means what he says when he says that people who like their current medical coverage can keep it, then he needs to do real work on modifying this Bill as it progresses through the debating process. If even the larger companies that currently offer such coverage to their employees were to decide to let its employees purchase insurance from the exchange, then it is very likely that many, many more women stand to lose abortion coverage, in the unlikely event of their ever needing it.
I love the slogan of one of the women's healthcare advocates: "Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition!".
The watering down of women's healthcare - Mikulski amendment won't be discussed on the floor. (http://bit.ly/56Murn)
The Mikulski Amendment is designed to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage quoting current guidelines for procedures like routine mammograms which were recently modified to start only at age 50 and to happen biennially instead of annually, especially if a specialist recommends the patient have one. The Mikulski Amendment: (http://bit.ly/4CPg2G)
The other thing is abortion coverage. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment that made it possible to pass the Bill through the House and had similar language added on in the Senate version prohibits insurance companies from offering plans on the exchange with abortion coverage to anyone that receives governmental aid. An NY Times Op-Ed on this issue: http://bit.ly/iw0WS
The problem, as I see it and perhaps my physician friends can clarify, is that the procedure that removes a foetus is termed a D&C (Dilation and Curettage). This same procedure removes a foetus in an unwanted pregnancy or removes the remains of a miscarriage or foetal demise. It is also the same procedure that is used to remove intra-uterine polyps. The medical term for all these procedures, irrespective of the pathology, is the same. And since the language of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is so broad and vague, it is highly likely (extremely likely, I would argue given past history) that insurance companies will use its language to deny women coverage.
All this because the Catholic Church and a bunch of religious fanatics are worried about the life of an unborn child to the point where they don't care about the lives of the living that can and will be jeopardised by not having access to this procedure.
If Obama really means what he says when he says that people who like their current medical coverage can keep it, then he needs to do real work on modifying this Bill as it progresses through the debating process. If even the larger companies that currently offer such coverage to their employees were to decide to let its employees purchase insurance from the exchange, then it is very likely that many, many more women stand to lose abortion coverage, in the unlikely event of their ever needing it.
I love the slogan of one of the women's healthcare advocates: "Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition!".
No comments:
Post a Comment